RESUMO
The essential factor in determining the preservation of restoration is the marginal seal. Restoring cervical lesions with a resin composite has always been a challenge. Composite resins with various viscosities and different bonding systems are being researched to reduce the microleakage. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) is the latest non-destructive technique for visualizing the microleakage. Objectives: To evaluate and compare the microleakage of Universal Flo composite resin (G-aenial) using etch and rinse adhesive system ER-2 steps (Adper Single Bond 2), self-etch adhesive system SE-1 step (G-Bond), and self-adhesive flowable composite resin (Constic) in Class V cavities using a confocal laser scanning microscope. Materials and Method: Class V cavities were prepared on 27 caries-free human extracted premolar teeth on the buccal and lingual surfaces with standardized dimensions of 2 mm height, width 4 mm, and a depth of 2 mm. After the cavity preparation, all teeth were randomly divided into three groups, namely Group-I: G-aenial Universal Flo with Single Bond 2 (n = 9 teeth); Group-II: G- aenial Universal Flo with G-Bond (n = 9 teeth), and Group-III: Constic (n = 9 teeth). The prepared and restored specimens were then subjected to thermocycling for 500 cycles in a water bath at 5 °C and 55 °C with a dwelling time of 30 s. The specimens were placed in 0.6% aqueous rhodamine dye for 48 h. Sectioning was carried out bucco-lingually and specimens were evaluated for microleakage under a confocal laser scanning microscope. Results: There was a significant difference (p = 0.009) in microleakage when comparing total etch and rinse, specifically between Adper Single Bond 2 ER-2 steps (fifth generation) and self-adhesive flowable composite resin, which is Constic. There was more microleakage in the self-etch bonding agent, particularly G-Bond, SE-1 step (seventh generation), when compared to ER-2 steps (fifth generation bonding agent); however, the results were not statistically significant (p = 0.468). The self-adhesive flowable composite resin showed more microleakage than SE-1 step and ER-2 steps. Conclusions: None of the adhesive systems tested were free from microleakage. However, less microleakage was observed in the total etch and rinse, especially Adper Single Bond 2 (ER-2 steps), than the self-etch adhesive system SE-1 step and self-adhesive flowable composite resin. Clinical significance: Constant research and technological advancements are taking place in dentin adhesives to improve the marginal seal. This has led to the evolution of total acid-etching dentin bonding agents termed as etch and rinse (ER)-2 steps (fifth generation dentin bonding agents) and self-etching (SE) 2 steps, and SE-1 step dentin bonding agents termed as the sixth and seventh generation bonding agents, respectively.
RESUMO
AIM: This study aims to evaluate and compare the sealing ability of Biodentine™ and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) plus® on root end cavities treated with 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), 0.2% Chitosan and 1% Phytic acid using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope (CLSM)-An in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty extracted single rooted teeth were instrumented and obturated with gutta-percha. The apical 3 mm of each tooth was resected and 3 mm root-end preparation was made using ultrasonic tip. 17% EDTA (n = 20), 0.2% Chitosan (n = 20) and 1% Phytic acid (n = 20) was used as a smear layer removing agent and each above group was further subdivided and restored with a root end filling material, Biodentine (n = 10) and MTA Plus (n = 10). The samples were coated with varnish except at the root end and after drying, they were immersed in Rhodamine B dye for 24 h. The teeth were then rinsed, sectioned longitudinally, and observed under CLSM. RESULTS: In the present study, MTA Plus® treated with 1% Phytic acid showed the least microleakage followed by Biodentine™ treated with 1% Phytic acid which was statistically not significant. MTA Plus® treated with 17% EDTA showed the highest microleakage when compared to other tested groups. There was a significant difference in microleakage between MTA Plus® and Biodentine™ when treated with 17% EDTA and 0.2% Chitosan. However, more microleakage was seen with Biodentine™ group than MTA plus® group. CONCLUSION: Root end cavities restored with MTA plus and treated with Phyitc acid showed superior sealing ability. Furthermore, smear layer removing agents will aid in better adaptability of root end filling material.